DanTrentfield

Um let me see here...... If my Fiance could live forever too HECK YEAH! if not HECK NO.

So I've been having problems playing Star Wars Empire At War on my Windows 10 Asus, and I'd like to ask how to fix a missing binkw32.dll and mss32.dll issue I've had with loading the game. Please give me support, it's the only game I could afford because I wanted my own apartment so me and my fiance could live together.

Okay, but let's say that somehow we were able to observe the universe from the non-existent outside of it using say.... "Magic" Would my model be off then? And since the universe is theoretically contained within itself as Delta1212 explained, it must then have a definable hypothetical edge, unreachable by us, but an edge none the less, otherwise we end up once again with a ∞∞ problem. Unless that's how the universe can be defined in size.

I haven't graduated yet, but the only jobs that I know that aren't AS hard to get as the real ones are full time, or part time jobs at restaurants, Like the Maggiano's I work at. Which some how I managed to get the lead chef position. I think it might have something to do with the fact that the former lead chef, good as he was, would always drink in our kitchen, because our kitchen is set up where we have this bar between us and the rest of the kitchen with a narrow slit to put food through, The real cook area is behind the slit, and the hot-plate area is in front of it, so no one could see him drinking. His luck ran out when our boss happened to pay him a visit because a friend of his was eating at the restaurant and wanted something special, and he was caught with a wine glass in hand. Anyways long story short I got a significant pay raise and full time position, and I got to do something I love for a job, cook. So it worked out well for me

I believe I've been going about this the entirely wrong way. Scratch the planar approach; Lets say the universe is like a torus, with it's expansion being equal both on the X and the Y axis. Now going from what both Phi and Delta have explained this torus is not expanding relative to itself, but is expanding relative to us, and at such a rate that we could never reach the edge of it, but there are hypothetical edges. With the type of expansion being exactly the same kind as the one explained by Phi's "Infinite Grand Hotel". So with this new representation we have a universe that is infinite, but only theoretically, with hypothetical edges beyond which there is nothing, Now to account for the possibility of us going around the vertical or horizontal circumference of the torus I ask you to remember that this model would be expanding far faster than we could ever travel, relative to us that is. The torus approach would allow for our three dimensions, and would comply with the statements made thus far. Yes, I am in a strange way thinking of the observable universe. I'm trying to disprove the notion that the universe is an absolute infinity in terms of size, even relative to itself, because a universe being infinite relative to itself does not make much sense, as it wouldn't be infinite relative to itself without it being ∞∞. You're right, I've been thinking about this the wrong way.

That's why it technically wouldn't "exist" It just isn't there yet, but it will be when expansion reaches that point. That is an interesting analogy. Well.... it's not that hard in reality, for example, I have a plane composed of three points, and a point on the plane. They are titled A B C and D for the point on the plane. If D moves beyond A then D becomes the new A but still remains D. A becomes the new D, but still remains A, and is now on the plane instead of defining the theoretical limit of it. And Strange, if we're going with your statement, wouldn't that mean that since the universe is homogeneously full of matter, that I'm on to something?

Border as defined by the part of the universe without matter or energy that technically doesn't exist yet. Yes, excuse my mistake please.

I did? I thought I covered it with "even expansion". Besides that how does this fare? you're correct. It's been a while since I've taken geometry.

which is precisely I said one has an equation and the other doesn't. An equation allows you to understand the fundamentals by breaking it down yourself.

I can tell the difference between the two because one says "This happens because a is before b" and the other gives me an equation with his explanation.My motive is to not necessarily condemn others, rather to help them create a more effective and easily understandable argument. You and I can throw equations and complex explanations at each other all day, but when a person with less experience attempts to read our points he is lost in the complexity of it. I am not dumb Phi, I can understand complexity, but there are those who cannot.

Good morning. I had an interesting thought while reading one of my old posts. This sounds a lot like a law but I just wanted to post this here to see if there any flaws in my statement. The universe is finite so long as no one particle or object passes the furthest former borders of the universe as defined by the two farthest outlying particles or objects from that particle or object, these three particles or objects describing a plane, with these three particles or objects being points describing this plane. In this fashion the size of the universe is relative to and described by it's own matter and energy, also in this fashion the universe is infinite, but only in a theoretical sense, as anything passing the farthest outlying point would become the new farthest outlying point. Also in this fashion the universe is homogenous and isotrophic, and it's expansion is even as governed by the three points. Finally the existence of these three points seperately defines time as a differential between them. Please point out any elbow bumping with or complete disregard of any laws in my statement so that I can remove the part that is not in accordance with that law. Thanks, Dan.

Hasn't a pole reversal been imminent for the last thousand years? Please do remember that the geological clock is just a trifle slower than our clocks so there's no need to panic. Also Our magnetic field will most likely maintain a strength sufficient to protect us from solar radiation, unless I'm horribly mistaken. So no need to panic.

I like Swedish better than English because, as you highlighted it is my native tongue, but what I would like to highlight is that a perspective is a relative thing. I also just like Swedish better than English because it's what I did my first years of school and reading in, and it's what my family spoke for the majority of the time. The other reason why I don't like English as much is because I'm constantly having to check my spellings to produce something that isn't a gargled mess, Like seriously, this is the second time for these sentences I've had to use google to look up spellings.

You're really asking for Phi or Swansont to swing the almighty ban hammer aren't you....... Censorship has a purpose, that is to protect the innocence of people who should not know about gruesome and explicit things, such as children. It also preserves the power of a word such as @$%@ or @&*! that you claim to be so fond of using. I think it's time that no matter how old you are, you do a bit of growing up.

The level of complexity of the explanation required decides it. There is no official judge for it, I simply thought it would be a good idea to bring everyone back to as simple explanations as possible without omitting any crucial facts to the theory or question. You've highlighted what I've been trying to convey, Make things as simple as possible without omitting anything crucial to the discussion, and express all facts.

Going out of my usual prowls once more, but let me remind you that ethics are relative to the individual that believes in them. For example the Aztecs thought it perfectly fine to kill hundreds of people in sacrifice to false gods, in the same way you can believe slaughtering animals for their meat is wrong, but that's relative to your point of view.

I'm talking more about the so called 'trash can' that is speculations than anywhere else. And at the same time I'm trying to help the SFN community a bit by calling the few people who would make something look more complex just to appear knowledgeable on a specific topic as stated in the OP. But you're absolutely right that science is complex and thusly requires complex explanations and reams of equations to explain theories and phenomenah, but at the same time there are simple questions like "are photons massless particles?" that don't need 500 lines of equations to be asked, Because it's not really a question if it already has an answer now is it?

I can translate my posts so far over to English for you if you like. I'm just so much more used to the grammar structure of Swedish, and although I speak pretty good English, I still don't have as large a vocabulary as I'd like.

Ah. My English apparently confuses things for me occasionally. Swedish is much better, Jag älskar svenska!

Here at SFN I've found a common problem: People like to make things that needn't be complex, complex to make themselves look more knowledgeable on a topic. There are places where complexity is necessary, such as is the case with many explanations with large amounts of complex mathematical equations and explanations for those equations, but there are also places where complexity simply isn't necessary. One piece of advice on posting scientific threads on SFN is: Don't make things more complex than they need to be, Remember that the simplest explanations are not only the ones that will carry the most weight with your opponent in debate, but will be the easiest for all to understand, and will leave the least doubt that you are attempting to use misinformation to influence the argument, or any other foul play.

If I'm not wrong time is the simple non-co-occurrence of two events, it's literally just a differential between point A and point B because they don't exist in the same instant, or one is slightly younger than the other. I think we all need to go back to that simple thought, because much like a plane in geometry in order to have a plane you have to have a differential between two points. I personally think time just happens to be that differential.

Yeahhh..... Hmm..... how do I put this? I was so far off on my basic representation of a universal timeline and explanation for the existence of time that I basically put aside the famous quote "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" In this case it was 99% inspiration and 1% perspiration, because this was inspired by working out a graphing equation for my intro college calc class. Well at least one positive thing can be learned from this: I don't know jack about physics. Also Mordred, thank you for the brilliant explanation on how I was wrong, I learned a lot from it, and am continuing to learn from it, I had no idea that time dilation was dependent on gravitational gradients, I thought it had to do solely with velocity relative to another object, this has definitely sparked my interest.

Problem is the adequate engine. I thought this would be a great idea at the start and that it would turn out to be worthwhile, but all it has done has sated my own ravenous curiosity on the subject of alternative fuels.

So if I'm not mistaken you're saying proof, which is synonymous with evidence, is not something science looks for. OK then. That's a little unusual but I guess your right on that we keep searching for better explanations, I guess it's just like an old quote of Max Planck's " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

The funny thing about light taking time to travel is that there is the distinct possibility that half the stars shining in the night sky could have become black holes or other non main sequence stars, or even may have gone supernova, and we still wouldn't know about it because they're so far away. It's going to be hilarious when an astronomer says that a star just blinked out, and then notices an expanding gas cloud and goes "oh......"